The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

#15,852
#15,852
SpaceCoastVol said:
Nothing funny about it especially when the alleged leader of the free world is eat up with it.

My father died of it. Trump doesn't exhibit any legitimate symptoms.
Click to expand...
My mother died from it. You're not around him enough to provide any sort of informed viewpoint. Neither am I, which is why I wouldn't make such an ignorant comment as you
 
#15,856
#15,856
SuzyVol said:
RT85, could you help me with this: The charge against Trump is a state charge being tried in state court. I have heard a couple of commentators, including Andrew McCarthy, explain that the prosecution had to pursue the state falsification of business records charge as a felony in order to be within the statute of limitations. In order to elevate the state falsification of business records to a felony, the prosecution has to show that the falsification was for the purpose of concealing another crime. The prosecution claims that the other crime is a violation of federal campaign laws. Yet the feds have not charged Trump with federal campaign law violation. Does the state court have jurisdiction to decide, as an element of this prosecution, that Trump violated federal campaign law? It seems that a charge of violating federal campaign law should be adjudicated in a federal court. This seems a lot like the Colorado ballot removal case where the state attempted to remove Trump from the ballot, as an insurrectionist, when he had not been federally charged, tried or convicted as an insurrectionist.
Click to expand...

The short answer is that the case isnā€™t over yet and thereā€™s no controlling case that says they canā€™t.

Pre-trial litigation seeks to resolve disputes over applicability of existing law and preserving/setting up new issues. Trial courts generally wonā€™t make new law to dismiss a case.
If thereā€™s no existing law saying ā€œyou canā€™t do that,ā€ then the case can proceed to trial.

Trials resolve disputes over the facts.
Whether his crime was an attempt to cover up another crime is an element of the offense, a disputed fact.
Theoretically, the state can still prove that element beyond a reasonable doubt without a charge or conviction by the other sovereign.
Factually, I think itā€™s a harder case to prove without the charge.

Post-trial litigation reviews the judgeā€™s decisions of law for errors and nominally reviews the jury verdict or other determinations of fact.
So, assuming the Trump team moves to dismiss on those grounds at some point at the trial level, the NY court of appeals and NY Superior Court (?) would weigh and then US Supreme Court would review those decisions but be limited to the US constitution. If they donā€™t move to dismiss on those grounds, then itā€™s probably been tried before and NY courts decided against them. Iā€™ve never tried that or had cause to research it, so I donā€™t know.

The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

They all say this until the fungus-controlled zombies eat your face. OMG... the irony
www.volnation.com www.volnation.com
Really long version of basically the same thing from the day the news broke. šŸ‘†
 
  • Like
Reactions: volbound1700 and SuzyVol
#15,861
#15,861
RockyTop85 said:
Discussion of the former guyā€™s cognitive decline has touched a nerve. Hits a little close to (the retirement) home for some, I guess.
Click to expand...
I think Trump has declined mentally, but no where near as severely as Biden. Both of them are too old. 65 should be the cutoff age for all elected officials.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85 and Septic
#15,862
#15,862
SpaceCoastVol said:
And that's the evidence of dementia? šŸ˜‚

I'll take 'exhaustion in a boring courtroom setting' for a man that's on the road 20 hours a day for a billion Alex
Click to expand...

I know when I'm the defendant in a criminal felony case and the people who hold my fate in their hands are being chosen, I go to sleep.

Sounds reasonable.
 
#15,865
#15,865
RockyTop85 said:
The short answer is that the case isnā€™t over yet and thereā€™s no controlling case that says they canā€™t.

Pre-trial litigation seeks to resolve disputes over applicability of existing law and preserving/setting up new issues. Trial courts generally wonā€™t make new law to dismiss a case.
If thereā€™s no existing law saying ā€œyou canā€™t do that,ā€ then the case can proceed to trial.

Trials resolve disputes over the facts.
Whether his crime was an attempt to cover up another crime is an element of the offense, a disputed fact.
Theoretically, the state can still prove that element beyond a reasonable doubt without a charge or conviction by the other sovereign.
Factually, I think itā€™s a harder case to prove without the charge.

Post-trial litigation reviews the judgeā€™s decisions of law for errors and nominally reviews the jury verdict or other determinations of fact.
So, assuming the Trump team moves to dismiss on those grounds at some point at the trial level, the NY court of appeals and NY Superior Court (?) would weigh and then US Supreme Court would review those decisions but be limited to the US constitution. If they donā€™t move to dismiss on those grounds, then itā€™s probably been tried before and NY courts decided against them. Iā€™ve never tried that or had cause to research it, so I donā€™t know.

The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

They all say this until the fungus-controlled zombies eat your face. OMG... the irony
www.volnation.com www.volnation.com
Really long version of basically the same thing from the day the news broke. šŸ‘†
Click to expand...
Thanks for your time. I still have a hard time understanding that this court, either the judge or the jury, is empowered to decide that a violation of federal law occurred. But, I have a hard time understanding lots of things. Again, thanks for your answer.
 
#15,866
#15,866
I think it sucks this is the only two ****tards we have to choose from, senile 50 year career politician or a Trump, while not perfect by no means but better than the puppet Biden.
 
#15,867
#15,867
SuzyVol said:
Thanks for your time. I still have a hard time understanding that this court, either the judge or the jury, is empowered to decide that a violation of federal law occurred. But, I have a hard time understanding lots of things. Again, thanks for your answer.
Click to expand...
Sounds like the DA has elected to pursue a theory that he intended to cover up some state crimes as well.

www.nytimes.com

Opinion | ā€˜Itā€™s a Very Winnable Caseā€™: Three Writers Dissect the Trump Trial

Debate and analysis about the case, jury selection and anticipation for a potential witness.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: SuzyVol and BernardKingGOAT
#15,872
#15,872
BigOrangeTrain said:
Why will you not spell God like itā€™s supposed to be spelled?
Click to expand...
And ye shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and burn their Asherim with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods; and ye shall destroy their name out of that place. 4 Ye shall not do so unto the LORD your God.ā€”ā€ŠDeuteronomy 12:3ā€“4

From this it is understood by the rabbis that one should not erase or blot out the name of God. The general halachic opinion is that this only applies to the sacred Hebrew names of God, not to other euphemistic references; there is a dispute as to whether the word "God" in English or other languages may be erased or whether Jewish law and/or Jewish custom forbids doing so, directly or as a precautionary "fence" about the law.

The words God and Lord are written by some Jews as G-d and L-rd as a way of avoiding writing any name of God out in full. The hyphenated version of the English name (G-d) can be destroyed, so by writing that form, religious Jews prevent documents in their possession with the unhyphenated form from being destroyed later. Alternatively, a euphemistic reference such as Hashem (literally, 'the Name') may be substituted, or an abbreviation thereof, such as in B''H (בְּעֶז×ØÖ·×Ŗ הַשֵׁם B'ezrat Hashem 'with the help of the Name').
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and hog88
#15,873
#15,873
turbovol said:
I do almost tear up at the torment sweet donnie trump must be going through with all these trials for his multifaceted lawbreaking. We can only take solace in knowledge that, as he as said, he's doing it for us. I'm scrunching my face up now to hold back the emotion....šŸ˜¢
Click to expand...

The peoples champ don't have room on the bandwagon.
 
#15,875
#15,875
The real threat in this case to DJT is if DJT takes the stand and starts rambling.
He will be subject to a character cross examination of which questions regarding other events maybe be asked.

If he had kept his mouth shut in the beginning, he wins election easily. He can't and look where he sits now.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top